Cadbury’s insult Naomi Campbell and Black women

Does the chocolate giant Cadbury’s believe that the First Lady Michelle Obama would like to see Black women being described as chocolate? No, thought not. The same goes for the vast majority of Black man and woman in this country and the USA.

So we ask the question why have Cadbury’s produced an ad that shows their new chocolate bar ‘ Bliss’ surrounded by diamonds with the headlines ‘ Move over Naomi there is a new diva in town’?

And for those that think this is funny-it's not. Black parents don’t want their children being called a chocolate bar because it's supposed to be funny. We thought we were done with this stuff in the seventies.

This latest insult to Black women comes after one of the countries top universities London School of Economics failed to sanction one of it its lecturers Satoshi Kanazawa for using pseudo science and claiming Black women are ugly.

Simon Woolley of Operation Black Vote stated:

‘President Obama and his wife may be the most powerful political couple in the world, but this insult by Cadbury’s clearly shows we do not live in a post-racial world.

Let’s just see how Cadbury’s respond. And if they don’t, rest assured there will be consequences.’.

Lee Jasper of BARAC, stated

‘This issue is not just about the insult to Naomi Campbell. She is entitled to be offended, but it's also about how these companies treat Black people in general. Part of the problem is that they don’t see it as offensive, maybe because their managements are almost always all white’.

A current American marketing trend is to encourage more people who suffer from cardiovascular disease to eat more dark choclate to help lower blood pressure for people with hypertension. Also researchers have found that chocolate increased insulin sensitivity, good for lowering diabetes risk. However this will only relate to dark and unsweetened chocolate that contain at least 50 to 70 percent cocoa which will contain more flavonoids that helps to control such disease. Encouraging people to eat dark chocolate for its health benefits is an appealing approach when advertising. However targeting a younger and glamorous obsessed driven market involves a lot of research and study before application.
Chocolate can sometimes be used in reference to being sweet, smooth, silky, tasty, indulging, seductive, divine or even heavenly. If Naomi has chosen to indorse this brand I am sure she is being well paid to do so and why not as a Black Woman I am all of the references that are commonly referred to in all the advertisements of chocolate and much, much more. Keep Positive. Woman! Are beautiful inside and out with no buts......

Naomi Campbell has not endorsed this product. She is being used without her consent. I spoke with her mother Valerie Campbell yesterday who informs me that Naomi is very upset by this ad. Valerie herself is shocked and dismayed.

I am incredulous at this! Are we really saying that no one and I mean, no one in Cadbury's diversity team (a global brand!!!) sat around the decision-making table when this advert was being put together, let alone tested? Is it me or are we really in the 21st century. I am so tired of organisations like Cadbury's who seem to be so totally unaware of the offence they cause and it's repercussions!

Firstly how do you know the Naomi mentioned in the advert is in fact Naomi Campbell. There is no picture of her and her full name is not used. Maybe the diamonds are there to remind the audience of her dalliance with Charles taylor and the “Blood Diamonds” scandal but it's the audience that has to draw that conclusion and make the reference of who the Naomi is, not the advert itself.

The fact that the advert uses colour and text that are more akin to Marilyn Monroes film “Gentlemen prefer Blondes” and her song “Diamonds are a Girls Best Friend” further confuses the issue.

And the name Naomi is Hebrew, meaning “Enjoyment, Pleasure and Gratification” all in-keeping with thoughts of eating Chocolate. So why no calls of anti-semitism?

If you're 30 or younger you will have no idea that Naomi Campbell was one of the worlds top three models in the early 80's – you wouldn't have been born.

So, why do we conclude that the Naomi mentioned in the advert is indeed Campbell. Is it because she is Britain's best known Diva – throwing temper tantrums (and mobile phones), demeaning and abusing staff and cameramen? Hardly a race issue then.

More importantly, the advert does not objectify Naomi rather it humanises the Bliss product. Like Rutger Hauer becoming a pint of Guinness (black clothing / white head - http://vimeo.com/13071978) this advert in reverse suggests the Bliss bar is more of a Human Diva than the best known Diva.

Anybody making the argument that this advert is racist – needs to take a cold hard look at themselves. For it's their interpretation of the advertisement that sees racism and not the advert itself.

Is this about Naomi Campbell? Well, I think the diamonds and reference to 'diva' is the biggest give away Paul. The diamond reference stems from the former leader of Sierra Leone giving Naomi diamonds, which she gave to Nelson Mandela's charity. Paul, there are a number of things going on here: First Cadbury's think it's fine to kick around Naomi Cambell to sell their product because she's not perfect and they can, which is wrong in of itself. But what is even more offensive is to liken a Black person to chocolate. What particularly depresses me is the fact that the ad would have gone through various stages of approval, and at no time its seems that anyone said, ' are we sure we want to liken a Black women to a chocolate bar', or maybe they did but don't care. I'm not sure what's more depressing.

-Really? Are you serious?
Maybe you are blind to the association of chocolate, being brown in colour and 'exotic' in composition, to black people. Whether this is reasonable is another matter, but racism doesn't tend to be reasonable.

"Firstly how do you know the Naomi mentioned in the advert is in fact Naomi Campbell."

-Hmm, maybe because it is blatantly obvious that they are referring to Naomi Campbell. Who else could they be referring to? Give an actual name that we could be confusing this reference with and you may sound less ridiculous.
Type "naomi" into Google images, of the first 26, 22 pictures are of Naomi Campbell -so don't be so coy. Cadbury's are taking advantage of popular association, and she has a pretty good legal case here.
This advert could "lower her in the eyes of right-thinking people generally" (defamation) and it refers to her by NAME. On the subject of the absent surname, it wouldn't matter in a court of law, "Naomi" would be understood to refer to the claimant by reasonable people who knew of her; especially when coupled with "diva". (courts like to look at the effect of the whole, rather than specific parts)
Secondly, once establishing that it is her name, Cadbury's is making commercial gain from an unauthorised use, so even if she does not succeed in a claim of defamation, she can sue for misappropriation of her name, which of itself has commercial value.

"The fact that the advert uses colour and text that are more akin to Marilyn Monroes film “Gentlemen prefer Blondes” and her song “Diamonds are a Girls Best Friend” further confuses the issue." [sic]

-Is this the association a reasonable person would make? Short answer: no. (-or maybe I'm too young to understand)

"And the name Naomi is Hebrew, meaning “Enjoyment, Pleasure and Gratification” all in-keeping with thoughts of eating Chocolate. So why no calls of anti-semitism?"

-So you CAN use Google... interesting that you ignored the 2nd search result: "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Campbell" and jumped straight to the 3rd.

"If you're 30 or younger you will have no idea that Naomi Campbell was one of the worlds top three models in the early 80's – you wouldn't have been born."

-I'm 20, and I know. And I can tell you that she is still famous now, which is why Cadbury's used her name. Try replacing Naomi with 'Natalie', (a randomly chosen name) it just wouldn't have the same effect. Think about it.

"So, why do we conclude that the Naomi mentioned in the advert is indeed Campbell. Is it because she is Britain's best known Diva – throwing temper tantrums (and mobile phones), demeaning and abusing staff and cameramen? Hardly a race issue then."

-So you admit that 'we' (the general audience of the advert) DO conclude that the advert refers to Campbell, which I might add, undermines much of your previous attempted argument.
Now your implied moral judgement of her actions is a separate issue and bound with your subjective opinion, something which is useless to argue about. That being said, are you seriously implying that because of her wrongdoings, she deserves to be treated in a less humane manner?
Or are you ignoring the chocolate reference and focusing specifically on the word "diva" to attempt to make your point?

"More importantly, the advert does not objectify Naomi rather it humanises the Bliss product. Like Rutger Hauer becoming a pint of Guinness (black clothing / white head - http://vimeo.com/13071978) this advert in reverse suggests the Bliss bar is more of a Human Diva than the best known Diva."

-I will engage with this point as if I think you are serious about it. If you can say that the product can be "humanised" by reference to Naomi, does it not logically follow that Naomi can be de-humanised by reference to the product? Or are you asserting that it only works one way?

"Anybody making the argument that this advert is racist – needs to take a cold hard look at themselves. For it's their interpretation of the advertisement that sees racism and not the advert "

-Hold on, -ok, done.
Took a look, looked back at the advert, it still has racist inferences. And I think (my opinion here) that it is not just an issue of over-sensitivity. Many of my non-black fellow students would be able to understand the inferences in the advert. And for the record, it did not insult me personally; but the point is:

It could and will insult some people and Cadbury's ran it anyway. THAT is the real issue, if you refuse to see that, then we are talking at cross purposes.

-Really? Are you serious?
Maybe you are blind to the association of chocolate, being brown in colour and exotic in composition, to black people. Whether this is reasonable is another matter, but racism doesn't tend to be reasonable.

"Firstly how do you know the Naomi mentioned in the advert is in fact Naomi Campbell."

-Hmm, maybe because it is blatantly obvious that they are referring to Naomi Campbell. Who else could they be referring to? Give an actual name that we could be confusing this reference with and you may sound less ridiculous.
Type "naomi" into Google images, of the first 26, 22 pictures are of Naomi Campbell -so don't be so coy. Cadbury's are taking advantage of popular association, and she has a pretty good legal case here.
This advert could "lower her in the eyes of right-thinking people generally" (defamation) and it refers to her by NAME. On the subject of the absent surname, it wouldn't matter in a court of law, "Naomi" would be understood to refer to the claimant by reasonable people who knew of her; especially when coupled with "diva". (courts like to look at the effect of the whole, rather than specific parts)
Secondly, once establishing that it is her name, Cadbury's is making commercial gain from an unauthorised use, so even if she does not succeed in a claim of defamation, she can sue for misappropriation of her name, which of itself has commercial value.

"The fact that the advert uses colour and text that are more akin to Marilyn Monroes film “Gentlemen prefer Blondes” and her song “Diamonds are a Girls Best Friend” further confuses the issue." [sic]

-Is this the association a reasonable person would make? Short answer: no. (-or maybe I'm too young to understand)

"And the name Naomi is Hebrew, meaning “Enjoyment, Pleasure and Gratification” all in-keeping with thoughts of eating Chocolate. So why no calls of anti-semitism?"

-So you CAN use Google... interesting that you ignored the 2nd search result: "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Campbell" and jumped straight to the 3rd.

"If you're 30 or younger you will have no idea that Naomi Campbell was one of the worlds top three models in the early 80's – you wouldn't have been born."

-I'm 20, and I know. And I can tell you that she is still famous now, which is why Cadbury's used her name. Try replacing Naomi with 'Natalie', (a randomly chosen name) it just wouldn't have the same effect. Think about it.

"So, why do we conclude that the Naomi mentioned in the advert is indeed Campbell. Is it because she is Britain's best known Diva – throwing temper tantrums (and mobile phones), demeaning and abusing staff and cameramen? Hardly a race issue then."

-So you admit that 'we' (the general audience of the advert) DO conclude that the advert refers to Campbell, which I might add, undermines much of your previous attempted argument.
Now your implied moral judgement of her actions is a separate issue and bound with your subjective opinion, something which is useless to argue about. That being said, are you seriously implying that because of her wrongdoings, she deserves to be treated in a less humane manner?
Or are you ignoring the chocolate reference and focusing specifically on the word "diva" to attempt to make your point?

"More importantly, the advert does not objectify Naomi rather it humanises the Bliss product. Like Rutger Hauer becoming a pint of Guinness (black clothing / white head - http://vimeo.com/13071978) this advert in reverse suggests the Bliss bar is more of a Human Diva than the best known Diva."

-I will engage with this point as if I think you are serious about it. If you can say that the product can be "humanised" by reference to Naomi, does it not logically follow that Naomi can be de-humanised by reference to the product? Or are you asserting that it only works one way?

"Anybody making the argument that this advert is racist – needs to take a cold hard look at themselves. For it's their interpretation of the advertisement that sees racism and not the advert "

-Hold on, -ok, done.
Took a look, looked back at the advert, it still has racist inferences. And I think (my opinion here) that it is not just an issue of over-sensitivity. Many of my non-black fellow students would be able to understand the inferences in the advert. And for the record, it did not insult me personally; but the point is, it could and will insult some people and Cadbury's ran it anyway. THAT is the real issue, if you refuse to see that, then we are talking at cross purposes.

Firstly, I must agree with Paul Atherton, I really don't thing this is (purposefully) racist. Perhaps it was a mistake choosing Naomi Campbell as a reference to a diva, but I don't thin it was deliberate. And only by making a big deal out of it and making a controversy out of something where it was probably nothing, your only making it worse by making it seem like it is racist. Maybe if it had said, 'there's a new black diva in town' or 'there's a new chocolate diva in town' then it would definitely be racist, but the fact that they only said that, well I don't think its that racist. But maybe I'm just yet to see the offensive side, I'm not sure.

The obvious answer to this question is as simple as the answer as to whether the ad is racist or not.

Paul Atherton seems to implicitly provide the answer as to whether the ad is racist or not, himself. In the first sentence of his second paragraph, he questions whether the Naomi referred to is actually Naomi Campbell at all. Nevertheless, in the second sentence of the same paragraph he seemingly answers this question in the affirmative by suggesting the lavish display of diamonds in the ad implicitly refers to the Charles Taylor/Naomi Campbell/Blood Diamonds affair. His ability (or willingness) to see a sub-text to the use of diamonds not only as an obvious example of one aspect of the luxurious trappings a diva's lifestyle undoubtedly entails, but also as the covert dig to whole Blood Diamonds affair probably made him sNigger. So, first, tell me how this "seemingly" intelligent Paul Atherton initially finds it difficult to make the connection between the name Naomi in an advert to promote a chocolate bar with chocolate-skin coloured, notoriously-referred-to-as-a diva, Blood-Diamond-Naomi Campbell? Secondly, why, once you have accepted it is Naomi Campbell we are referring to here of course (go figure), is it okay to be able “read” the sub-text re the diamonds and not the sub-text re chocolate, being the colour of Naomi's skin, being used to promote a piece of candy in this ad?

Responding to this man's comments has already wasted enough of my time. It's patently obvious and is undoubtedly something the high profile advertising agency that came up with this ad is well aware of (probably strongly staffed by Republican voting members (and do you not watch Madmen - lol)) as they would have considered all the likely connotations that c/would ensue. Bottom line, they would have assessed the fallout: best case scenario, the naivety of consumers to perceive the ad in a non-racist way, seeing the humour; worst case scenario, and something that should have been enough to scrub the ad altogether, the racial implications of referencing a famous Afro-European model with "diva-like" behaviour and chocolate coloured skin (like my own) with a goddam chocolate bar you can buy for what, £0.75 pence - not including the scoff re diamonds which they would have perceived as an “extremely clever” aspect of the ad. No, this ad’s not racist at all!

Everyone, bottom line, sees how it could be perceived as offensive, and, for me, the racism is this indifference. Cadbury’s knows its market base in the same way car manufacturers factor into their pricing the unavoidable death of some people who drive their cars through product malfunction, on their part, as a result of build; the risk to Cadburys clearly proved to be far more advantageous than disadvantageous - bad publicity being good publicity and all that crap. The sinister side to the running of this ad is the plausibility that it was premeditated to coincide with the First Lady’s visit to the UK; she may be the First Lay with degrees from Harvard and Princeton (I believe), but she’s still a X$%£^. Some people still find it hard to digest the fact she is the wife of the President of America, I guess in pretty much the same way it’s difficult to digest this third-grade, low quality crappy chocolate. Real chocolate is supposed to melt in your mouth and not require a glass of water to help generate ample amount of saliva to breakdown its inferior quality of chocolate. Naomi has every right to be outraged for this reason alone – it’s not as if we’re talking about Paul de Bondt’s chocolates here, are we... lol!

To begin with, you're making an argument that is based on interpretation and not on what is actually presented.

Only two references are placed in that advert that make you believe it could be associated with Campbell

1. The Diamonds
2. The term Diva.

Neither makes reference to race.

The reader has to know both references to make a correlation between the two to derive that it's Campbell, then that Campbell is Black and then that the chocolate and black skin are related.

It clearly doesn't do that.

The reader however may? And that has always been my point. If you see it as racist, that's more about the interpretation than what is implied by the advert.

"Maybe you are blind to the association of chocolate, being brown in colour and exotic in composition, to black people. Whether this is reasonable is another matter, but racism doesn't tend to be reasonable."

Again, this is the interpretation of the reader and is certainly not implied by the advert.

I was called names like "Chocolate Drop" when I was growing up, as my ginger haired friends were called "Duracell" (the battery with the copper covered top). But this was name calling not racism. And it is because I have those references and I happen to know Naomi's story I know about these things. But if I didn't, I couldn't conclude that and therefore could not make those correlations.

What would Kraft achieve by trying to be racist? They just want to sell products.

One of course, could be the cynic here, and suggest it was a perfectly placed campaign to promote this very reaction i.e. that saying "Move over Naomi, there's a new diva in town" would promote a response amongst a small number of the buying community that would create nationwide press coverage promoting the bar (and thereby increasing it's advertising spend by getting news coverage, debate shows etc. and because the issue in the general public's eyes are so ludicrous - greater sales) - but I think that would be giving the AD/PR Agencies too much credit - but I've advised clients to do something similar in a different context, so who knows?

"-So you CAN use Google... interesting that you ignored the 2nd search result: "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Campbell" and jumped straight to the 3rd."

I knew what the name Naomi meant, because I lived with my girlfriend who was a Jewish Nurse for 7 years. She was very proud of her name.

I've just Googled "Naomi" - Naomi the name comes up first, then Campbell, then Naomi (Bible), then Naomi House (a Hospice), then Naomi Watts (the actress), then Naomi Atkinson (the designer & illustrator) then Naomi Korn (copyright specialists) and Naomi Alderman (novelist, games writer & journalist).

"I'm 20, and I know. And I can tell you that she is still famous now, which is why Cadbury's used her name. Try replacing Naomi with 'Natalie', (a randomly chosen name) it just wouldn't have the same effect. Think about it."

In all fairness, if you are 20, you will have to have said you heard or read she was famous in the 80's. You didn't experience the frenzy that surrounded her fame then, so you couldn't know. But that's just semantics. The more important point is that this product is aimed at the under 30's market so it's not her fame they are playing on it's her "Diva" credentials.

"-So you admit that 'we' (the general audience of the advert) DO conclude that the advert refers to Campbell, which I might add, undermines much of your previous attempted argument"

No, I admit that speaking about it on this site that would be true. But many of the general audience had no idea what Naomi the advert was referring too. They assumed it was a Diva but had no references to make that conclusion.

"Now your implied moral judgement of her actions is a separate issue and bound with your subjective opinion, something which is useless to argue about. That being said, are you seriously implying that because of her wrongdoings, she deserves to be treated in a less humane manner?
Or are you ignoring the chocolate reference and focusing specifically on the word "diva" to attempt to make your point?"

The fact that her "Diva" rather than being subjective is well reported and has been for years (here's just a small example):

It's a chocolate advert - the association IS with the term Diva not the chocolate bar which is in keeping with the overall campaign for Bliss. To ignore that would be to ignore the advert entirely.

What has this said about Naomi other than she is a Diva which she has acknowledged herself?

As I've previously stated the association between chocolate and colour is in the readers mind and clearly not implied by the advert.

"I will engage with this point as if I think you are serious about it. If you can say that the product can be "humanised" by reference to Naomi, does it not logically follow that Naomi can be de-humanised by reference to the product"

Yes, but she's not being. If the bar was called Naomi, if they'd said anything about Naomi being a chocolate bar, then of course it would work to the contra - as I showed with my example about Guinness. But they don't. They say Naomi is a Diva and so is the Chocolate bar. Any connection between Naomi and the product is not implied by the advert but found by the reader.

"Took a look, looked back at the advert, it still has racist inferences. And I think (my opinion here) that it is not just an issue of over-sensitivity. Many of my non-black fellow students would be able to understand the inferences in the advert. And for the record, it did not insult me personally; but the point is, it could and will insult some people and Cadbury's ran it anyway. THAT is the real issue, if you refuse to see that, then we are talking at cross purposes."

Then one would argue that maybe many of your student friends have unresolved racist issues (being intentionally inflammatory here to make a point - but it's a valid one).

Are you arguing that we shouldn't do anything that people can read offence into? As I said the Jews have as much right for demonstrating against this Ad for taking a religious name and using it to sell product as do the Black Communities (though in truth most people I've spoken to, see all this fuss as being extremely damaging to race relations).

For your counter argument to hold water, that this advert is indeed racist, you need to address why it would be. Otherwise, we have to take it on face value, that this ad is nothing more than a tongue in cheek reference to a chocolate bar, that's positioning itself in the youth market, as a premium product and has been advertised as a glamorous diva in its own right.

Naomi Campbell is a diva with court convictions to prove it! the ad is surely about that !Seriously Who cares what colour the person is or the chocolate they could have done the same thing using cheryl cole or a number of other 'divas'.If naomi was a better role model she wouldnt have been mentioned! Far too much about colour these days folks and not enough about the quality of the individual.It suits the press etc to have people concentrate on this nonsense rather than on the wider issues of society.Get a grip-don't let them divide and rule!

It is clear for those who have their feet firmly planted on the ground.

"Firstly how do you know the Naomi mentioned in the advert is in fact Naomi Campbell."

Cadburys have issued an apology.

"And the name Naomi is Hebrew, meaning “Enjoyment, Pleasure and Gratification” all in-keeping with thoughts of eating Chocolate. So why no calls of anti-semitism?"

What's the relevance of this point and question? Off the mark and out of touch with the reality of the subject.

"So, why do we conclude that the Naomi mentioned in the advert is indeed Campbell. Is it because she is Britain's best known Diva – throwing temper tantrums (and mobile phones), demeaning and abusing staff and cameramen? Hardly a race issue then."

I refer you to an earlier answer to an earlier question of yours.

"Anybody making the argument that this advert is racist – needs to take a cold hard look at themselves. For it's their interpretation of the advertisement that sees racism and not the advert itself."

This is the sort of attitude we adopt until we are slapped with a BAFTA.

Discussing black women, women in general, as simply vessels of aesthetic pleasure rather than entire beings— humans should be confronted. But for women of African descent more so, because the monopoly on "beauty" that the white, blond hair and blue eyed archetype has imprinted on society has left women of African Descent as mere vessels of "pleasure" -instant gratification sexually- but not something you can take home to the family.

"Discussing black women, women in general, as simply vessels of aesthetic pleasure rather than entire beings— humans should be confronted. But for women of African descent more so, because the monopoly on "beauty" that the white, blond hair and blue eyed archetype has imprinted on society has left women of African Descent as mere vessels of "pleasure" -instant gratification sexually- but not something you can take home to the family."

I hate to say this, but, some Black Women might be responsible for what you've described.